2006-03-04

Yes, this is my 100th posting to the blog since I started it that fateful day in early December when I opened up with this brief hello message. Back then, I posted 2-3 times a day about a variety of unexciting subjects, went on lengthy rants about nothing, and had no readers. Today, I post 6-10 times a week about a variety of unexciting subjects, spend half my time just posting a dump of links with brief fark-like commentary, and have no readers.

Who knows where I'll be at post 200!

In December I posted 26 times in 20 days, for an average of one post every 0.769 days (ie. about 18 hours, 27 minutes, 41.5 seconds)

In January I posted 40 times over 31 days, for an average of one post every 0.775 days (ie. 18 hours, 36 minutes, 0 seconds)

In February I posted 29 times over the 28 days, for an average of one post every 0.9655 days (ie. 23 hours, 10 minutes, 20.69 seconds)

So my December-January rate was falling off pretty good by February, though the first two months were surprisingly constant.

In total, excluding this post but including my 4 March posts up until the posting I am making here, I have made 99 posts in just under 82 days (81 days, 22 hours, 40 minutes -- 118000 minutes in total. This means 1191.919191 minutes in between each post -- 19.86 hours. So on average, every 19 hours, 51 minutes, and 55.1515 seconds you should be stopping by this blog to read the new posting. And, of course, browse the archives.

Best ReadsSo of interest then might be a few of the highlights from the past 118 thousand minutes:

Probably my best post was my single piece of original research to date: linking Edmonton's 2005 murder locations with the LRT tracks. I apologize for never getting that map posted. I have it on a floppy, I'll stick it on right after this post. Classic ret-conning, as it were.

Not particularly creative, though newsworthy, is my next day reaction to the January 23rd federal election. Again, remember that it was the 24th before I saw a word...I was holed up with my ex-girlfriend's fiancee the night of the election. Man was I committed to not actually watching the results!

I also do a nice dig at what Harper should have said when the arts community started hounding him for money when 2 days earlier they were telling anyone who would listen that Harper was the devil incarnate. I wrote a letter to the Globe and Mail on a similar vein. "Truewest" over at the Shotgun blog has twice tore into me, believing my Harper speech sample in blockquotes was the exact text of the (unpublished) letter to the editor and criticizing it for being too long-winded...which naturally was the reason the letter to the Globe was different than the rant, which if Truewest had read the entire post would have been clear to him. Anyways, Truewest has twice criticized me for "pushing" it on the Shotgun without once addressing the point at hand: why should a Conservative gov't fund an arts community that is not only hostile to it, but refuses to artistically promote a conservative worldview?

During the election's early stages I took on Jack Layton over his star (losing) candidate's "evolving" belief on morality. I asked, and believe I am still the only one who has asked: will Jack tell us which sick and depraved lifestyle he today opposes that he will likely endorse at some time in the future? Will his morality evolve to include pedophiles? Snuff films? Beastiality? (As a bonus, that post involves my famous quip about hockey's resident ass-munch Sean Avery and his gorgeous puck bunny plaything)